Do we want to support append-on-replace at all? I find the "Joe is
offline/Joe is online" append really ugly. That should be a replace -
period. The append only makes sense when it WOULD have been two
consecutive messages.
Ted, I think this sort of confusion is a result of us not being willing
to define appending more explicitly in the API. Because we wanted it to
be implicit and "easier for the developer", we've ended up with a
mishmash, both on our side (we aren't even implementing our own spec
correctly!) and in apps.
In a worst-case scenario, we might ship a bad implementation in Jaunty,
and then NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGE IT because third-party apps like Skype
implement to our bug, not our spec!
Do we want to support append-on-replace at all? I find the "Joe is
offline/Joe is online" append really ugly. That should be a replace -
period. The append only makes sense when it WOULD have been two
consecutive messages.
Ted, I think this sort of confusion is a result of us not being willing
to define appending more explicitly in the API. Because we wanted it to
be implicit and "easier for the developer", we've ended up with a
mishmash, both on our side (we aren't even implementing our own spec
correctly!) and in apps.
In a worst-case scenario, we might ship a bad implementation in Jaunty,
and then NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGE IT because third-party apps like Skype
implement to our bug, not our spec!
Mark